Does grammatical aspect influence event conceptualization? The description of translational events in a second language / ¿Influye el aspecto gramatical en la conceptualización del evento? La descripción de eventos de translación en la segunda lengua
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online November, 2019
Does grammatical aspect influence event conceptualization? The description of translational events in a second language / ¿Influye el aspecto gramatical en la conceptualización del evento? La descripción de eventos de translación en la segunda lengua
It has been proposed that there is a relationship between grammatical aspect and event conceptualization. In addition, it has been proposed that grammaticized concepts that do not have obvious counterparts in the world, like aspect, would be more resistant to restructuring when acquiring a second language. Russian and Catalan both have grammatical aspect, though their habitual uses do not completely overlap. In two studies, we analysed the oral narrative production in Catalan of advanced L2 speakers of Catalan whose L1 is Russian and of native Catalan speakers. In study one, we analysed the aspectual framing of the narrative, while in study two, the participants described 48 short video clips depicting different types of translational movement. Although Russian L1 speakers have acquired the means to express aspectual nuances in Catalan, they consistently differed from Catalan native speakers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AthanasopoulosP.BylundE. (2013). Does grammatical aspect affect motion event cognition? A cross‐linguistic comparison of English and Swedish speakers. Cognitive Science, 37, 286–309.
2.
BergenB. K.Wheeler, K. (2010). Grammatical aspect and mental simulation. Brain and Language, 112, 150–158.
3.
BermanR. A.SlobinD. I. (1994). Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
BylundE.JarvisS. (2011). L2 effects on L1 event conceptualization. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14, 47–59.
6.
CarrollM.StutterheimC. V.NüseR. (2004). The language and thought debate: A psycholinguistic approach. In HabelC.PechmannT. (Eds.), Approaches to language production (pp. 18–218). Berlin: Mouton.
7.
ComrieB. (1981). Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8.
DahlÖ. (1985). Tense and aspect systems. New York, NY: Basil Blackwell.
DriaginaV. V. (2007). Crossing and bridging spaces in a second language: A corpus-based investigation of motion talk by american learners of Russian. The Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved fromhttps://etda.libraries.psu.edu/files/final_submissions/6441
11.
FilipovićL. (2007). Talking about motion. A crosslinguistic investigation of lexicalization patterns. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
12.
FleckenM.AthanasopoulosP.KuipersJ. R.ThierryG. (2015). On the road to somewhere: Brain potentials reflect language effects on motion event perception. Cognition, 141, 41–51.
13.
FleckenM.CarrollM.WeimarK.StutterheimC. V. (2015). Driving along the road or heading for the village? Conceptual differences underlying motion event encoding in French, German, and French-German L2 users. Modern Language Journal, 99, 100–122.
14.
FleckenM.StutterheimC. V.CarrollM. (2014). Grammatical aspect influences motion event perception: Findings from a cross- linguistic non-verbal recognition task. Language and Cognition, 6, 45–78.
15.
ForsythJ. (1970). A grammar of aspect. Usage and meaning in the Russian verb. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
16.
HaskoV. (2010). The role of thinking for speaking in adult L2 speech: The case of (non)uniderectionality encoding by American learners of Russian. In HanZ.CadiernoT. (Eds.), Linguistic Relativity in SLA: Thinking for speaking (pp. 34–58). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
17.
HuetteS.WinterB.MatlockT.ArdellD. H.SpiveyM. (2014). Eye movements during listening reveal spontaneous grammatical processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–7.
18.
Ibarretxe-AntuñanoI. (2004). Language typologies in our language use: The case of Basque motion events in adult oral narratives. Cognitive Linguistics, 15, 317–349.
19.
JandaL. A. (2003). Aspect at your fingertips: Why what you know about matter matters, or a user-friendly conceptualization of verbal aspect in Russian. The Slavic and East European Journal, 47, 251–281.
20.
JarvisS.PavlenkoA. (2008). Cross-linguistic influence in language and cognition. New York: Routledge.
21.
LeveltW. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
22.
LeveltW. J. M. (1996). Perspective taking and ellipsis in spatial descriptions title. In BloomP.PetersonM. A.NadelL.GarrettM. F. (Eds.), Language and space (pp. 77–107). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
23.
MacWhinneyB. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
24.
MaddenC. J.ZwaanR. A. (2003). How does verb aspect constrain event representations?Memory & Cognition, 31, 663–672.
25.
MatlockT. (2010). Abstract motion is no longer abstract. Language and Cognition, 2, 243–260.
26.
MayerM. (1969). Frog, where are you?New York, NY: Dial Press.
27.
ParrillF.BergenB. K.LichtensteinP. V. (2013). Grammatical aspect, gesture, and conceptualization: Using co-speech gesture to reveal event representations. Cognitive Linguistics, 24, 135–158.
28.
PavlenkoA. (2010). Verbs of motion in L1 Russian of Russian–English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 49–62.
29.
Pérez-SaldanyaM. (2002). Les relacions aspectuals i temporals. In SolàJ.LloretM. R.MascaróJ.Pérez-SaldanyaM. (Eds.), Gramàtica del Català contemporani (pp. 2567–2661). Barcelona: Empúries.
30.
SchmiedtováB. (2011). Do L2 speakers think in the L1 when speaking in the L2?Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8, 139–179. Retrieved fromhttp://vialjournal.webs.uvigo.es/abstract_8_6.html
31.
SchmiedtováB.StutterheimC. V.CarrollM. (2011). Language specific patterns in event construal in advanced second language speakers. In PavlenkoA. (Ed.), Thinking and speaking in two languages (pp. 66–106). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
32.
SlobinD. I. (1987). Thinking for speaking. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 435–445. doi:10.3765/bls.v13i0.1826
33.
SlobinD. I. (1993). Adult language acquisition: A view from child langugage study. In PerdueC. (Ed.), Adult language acquisition: Cross-linguistic perspectives (pp. 239–252). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34.
SlobinD. I. (2003). Language and thought online: Cognitive consequences of linguistic relativity. In GentnerD.Goldin-MeadowS. (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 157–192). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
35.
SlobinD. I. (2004). The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. In StrömqvistS.VerhoevenL. (Eds.), Relating events in narrative: Typological and contextual perspectives (pp. 219–257). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
36.
StutterheimC. V.AndermannM.CarrollM.FleckenM.SchmiedtováB. (2012). How grammaticized concepts shape event conceptualization in language production: Insights from linguistic analysis, eye tracking data, and memory performance. Linguistics, 50, 833–867.
37.
StutterheimC. V.CarrollM. (2006). The impact of grammatical temporal categories on ultimate attainment in L2 learning. In ByrnesH.Weger-GuntharpH.SprangK. A. (Eds.), Educating for advanced foreign language capacities. Educating for advanced foreign language capacities. Constructs, curriculum, instruction, assesment (pp. 40–53). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. doi:10.1080/17501220802496572
38.
StutterheimC. V.NüseR. (2003). Processes of conceptualization in language production: Language-specific perspectives and event construal. Linguistics, 5, 851–881.
39.
StutterheimC. V.NüseR.Murcia-SerraJ. (2002). Cross-linguistic differences in the conceptualisation of events. Language and Computers, 39, 179–198.
40.
TalmyL. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. Vol. III: Grammatical categories and the lexicon. In ShopenT. (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (pp. 57–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
41.
TalmyL. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
42.
TimberlakeA. (2004). A reference grammar of Russian. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
43.
WilkinsD. P. (2004). The verbalization of motion events in Arrernte. Relating events in narrative: Typologiocal and contextual perspectives. In StrömqvistS.VerhoevenL. (Eds.), Relating events in narrative: Typological and contextual perspectives (pp. 143–157). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
